<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
I think that one of the contrasts aimed for in the linked lecture,
although not particularly well advanced in it, was between apology
on the one hand, and constructive acknowledgement of past wrongs on
the other hand. So, the former would look like "<i>We're</i> sorry
for what <i>we</i> did" (the criticism being that the second <i>we</i>
simply no longer exists), while the latter would look more like "<i>We</i>
acknowledge what <i>our ancestors</i> did, and <i>we</i> (now)
will work to right those wrongs in any way we can". The latter can
include a kind of apology, in the same way that you might apologise
for someone associated with you and who has caused some offence
(apology by proxy); but it also draws a clearer line around the
meaning of 'apology' in the purest sense.<br>
<br>
Franz (and others) - do you think this latter form of constructive
acknowledgement could be appreciated by discriminated groups, like
an apology could be?<br>
<br>
Apologies if this is a bit much for a Friday afternoon!<br>
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
--<br>
Dr. Dave Sayers<br>
Honorary Research Fellow<br>
College of Arts & Humanities<br>
and Language Research Centre<br>
Swansea University<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dave.sayers@cantab.net">dave.sayers@cantab.net</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers">http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 06/05/2011 10:15, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Franz.Dotter@uni-klu.ac.at">Franz.Dotter@uni-klu.ac.at</a> wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4DC3D8650200006E000A9607@gwx1.uni-klu.ac.at"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<div>Dear colleagues,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are several correct things in the argumentation in
favor of "Non-apologizing", as e.g. that we put our nowadays
perspective on historic events which happened in completely
different cultural contexts, by that obstructing our
understanding what really happened.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But I would really very much contradict the aim of "Don't
apologize" for several reasons:</div>
<div>Apologies can contribute to the weakening of historical
traumata which sometimes play a destructive role in our living
together. The range of this goes from big mass murder to our own
families' history: To apologize for (or to acknowledge dolor
which is just a slight language variant of apologizing) the fact
that an aunt in our own family was discriminated because she
gave birth to a child without being married may help her child
much. As an Austrian I'm still ashamed abou the mass murder done
by the Nazis in my country and I'm very much feeling with the
victims, even having some bad conscience (against factuality).
Therefore I have very much appreciated any apology against
Jewish, Polish, Roma etc. people done by our politicians. Now
working with deaf people who were discriminated for a long time,
I understand their wish for an apology what has been done to
them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Naturally, there is no "scientific proof" that we should do
that (but also no proof against it), may it come from
philosophy, law, or what else. Naturally, apologizing may become
fashionable and an instrument of manipulating people. But at the
end there is a big relief if we act like e.g. the African coping
with mass murder, be it actual or several deceniia or centuries
behind. Victims and successors of victims may profit much when
some representatives declare (e.g. by apology) that they or
their ancestors have been treated badly. Pragmatically, they may
feel it as some sort of "justice". Naturally, it is not in the
literal sense, but it is in feeling and strenthening identity.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One argument against the "different cultural context" which
we seemingly do not accept in apologizing: Interestingly enough,
we find in many phases of human history that there were people
who did not want to treat others badly (we had e.g. Jesuits
arguing against murdering South American Indians, we had
farmners arguing against feudal ideology). Therefore the
"cultural perspective" was not unanimous as may be falsely
assumed. So the feeling of "injustice" was much more existent
than "Don't apologize" assumes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Honest apology should remain a pragmatic mode of relief and
education in human rights.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best Regards</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Franz Dotter</div>
<div> </div>
<div>University of Klagenfurt<br>
Center for Sign Language and Deaf Communication<br>
Funded by: Provincial government of Carinthia, Bundessozialamt
Kaernten<br>
Head: Franz Dotter (hearing)<br>
Collaborators: Elisabeth Bergmeister (deaf), Silke Bornholdt
(deaf), Andrea Grilz (hearing, on maternity leave), Christian
Hausch (deaf), Marlene Hilzensauer (hearing), Klaudia Krammer
(hearing), Christine Kulterer (hearing), Anita Pirker (deaf),
Nathalie Slavicek (hard of hearing), Natalie Unterberger (deaf)<br>
Homepage: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/zgh">http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/zgh</a><br>
Deaf server (in German): <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://deaf.uni-klu.ac.at">http://deaf.uni-klu.ac.at</a><br>
Fax: ++43 (0)463 2700 2899<br>
Phone: ++43 (0)463 2700 /2821 (Franz Dotter),/2823 (Marlene
Hilzensauer), /2824 (Klaudia Krammer), /2829 (Christine
Kulterer)<br>
Email addresses: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:firstname.lastname@uni-klu.ac.at">firstname.lastname@uni-klu.ac.at</a><br>
<br>
<br>
>>> Dave Sayers <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dave.sayers@CANTAB.NET"><dave.sayers@CANTAB.NET></a> 5/6/2011
9:38 >>><br>
A broadcast lecture arguing against apologising for historical
wrongs, <br>
which I thought might be of some interest to list members.<br>
<br>
The title, and my brief synopsis, might bring to mind any number
of <br>
stubborn polemics, but it's actually (I thought) a cleverly
thought out <br>
piece. At least it certainly isn't about defending or shrugging
off <br>
historical wrongs.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010t7tx">http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010t7tx</a><br>
<br>
I think BBC radio online is available outside the UK, although I
have no <br>
way to check.<br>
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
--<br>
Dr. Dave Sayers<br>
Honorary Research Fellow<br>
College of Arts & Humanities<br>
and Language Research Centre<br>
Swansea University<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dave.sayers@cantab.net">dave.sayers@cantab.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers">http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>